3 votes

Seeking GOOD questions that will FORCE Pro-Gun control advocates to STOP & THINK.

I plan on bombarding some well meaning friends that are pro-gun control with some thought provoking questions. The point being to make them think for themselves without having someone preach or try to convince them otherwise.

Do you think that maybe we should ban murder and drugs as well?

Do you think that the last rape victim might've wished she had had a gun & knew how to use it?

Do you think that any of the victims or lucky survivors of mass shootings had wished they had had a gun on them at the time of the shootings, thus being able to defend themselves and others?

Do you think that there was, and still is a correlation between gun control & genocide/democide?

Do you think that mugger/rapist/burglar/carjacker/home-invader hopes you do, or hopes you don't have a gun?

WHO would YOU PERSONALLY possibly threaten with a gun and WHY?

Do you seriously think that criminals, or anyone dead set on acquiring a gun will now be unable to get one if a ban is in effect?

How do you think the revolutionary war would have turned out if there was a gun ban in place?

If history is any indication, why would a government really want to disarm its citizens?

Help me out here guys.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

What seems to be clear from

What seems to be clear from the evidence is that when you ban guns, the only thing that goes down in a positive manner is gun-related violence/homicide, including gun accidents. On the flip side, you have increases in violent crime, death by crimes, petty crimes, etc. Unquestionably.

Now, people were saying during Sandy Hook that if those kids had died in a bus accident, it would have been sad, but not nearly as tragic.

So it seems that if you ban guns, you might have lower "tragic" deaths in a trade-off for (much) more death overall.

What do we as a society want? If government's role is to protect life, wouldn't they be best off pursuing a policy that lowers the number of overall deaths, no matter how it happens?

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Why would you punish me

for a crime I did not commit?

How about this: Would you

How about this: Would you rather be in a room with one bad person and 10 good people and only the bad person has a gun? Or would you rather be in a room with one bad person and 10 good people and everyone has a gun? There is no trick to the question and no other information available about the attitudes of anyone in the room and there are no other room options.

Obviously, they will refuse to answer or make up a third room that only exists in fantasy land. But, if they are intellectually honest and they honestly believe that guns, in and of themselves, are the problem then they would have to choose room 1 because it has the fewest number of guns in it.

Live Free or Die Trying

Here's One

Have you ever lived in a dangerous inner city neighborhood with no bars on your windows and no burglar alarm? Are you female, elderly, or disabled? Do you have extensive experience with forearms? Unless you answer yes to all of the above, who do you think you are you to say that no one needs more than a handgun to protect herself?

___________________________________________________________________________
"Bipartisan: both parties acting in concert to put both of their hands in your pocket."-Rothbard

Here's one...

What do police officers choose to protect themselves from criminals that NEVER have mass shootings at a police station?

P.S.

Laws don't prevent crime, people with guns do.

Why are criminals called criminals?

Because they break laws.Do you really think making more
laws will stop them from breaking the laws?

Kathleen Gee's picture

Choose your words carefully

You want to "force" people to do something by "bombarding" them with fact-drones?

(I will pause to allow that to sink in.)

Please realize that you're using the same strategy as the Obama foreign policy. It's a first-strike mindset. It will be just as effective for you as it has been for Obama.

You can't argue emotions with facts. Can't be done. What you can do is build rapport with the emotional person, establish common ground, get them thinking again, and then gently introduce them to some concepts with loving kindness.

Our "establishment" enemies are the ones who benefit when we behave divisively. Let's not go there.

More in my previous post on this subject: http://www.dailypaul.com/266970/what-to-do-when-confronted-b...

"Evil is powerless if the good are unafraid." - Ronald Reagan

Public Relations Consulting

Guilty as charged (somewhat)

I won't take the Obama comparison as much as I'll take the Ron Paul comparison when the Dr. refused to state who he would be voting for president. Bottom line being is WE need people to start waking up, and start asking questions without blindly accepting everything that's "force"-fed to them on a daily basis via msm/government.

As for not being able to argue emotions with fact - try telling that to suicide and hostage negotiators, or someone that has to come to terms with pulling the plug on a loved one's life. That rapport you're talking about leads to facts. Everyone is different and what works on some, may not work on others. The people I will be asking are not complete strangers(though the questions would not necessarily be lost on them), as I already know the people that I am "targeting"(lol-sorry couldn't help myself), and I understand that what will usually work on one friend won't necessarily work on another. However, the point is to have them start thinking for "themselves" and start researching more for "themselves" without the necessity of someone "forcing" them to - thus converting them into free & critical thinkers.

So that's my devious plan - BWAHAHAHAHA.....

So in your opinion, how am I being divisive?

Gun Control Area Results

Why do cities with such drastic gun control laws such as Chicago and Washington DC continue to have high murder and violent crimes rates? Why do they lead the nation in violent crime?

Why did Dianne Feinstein feel the need to get the ONLY concealed-carry permit in San Francisco County when her family was targeted by a terrorist group?

I'll think of some others.

Also, you're missing the word "control" in your first sentence.

No permission needed or asked for!

Do you think that by the nature of life, I have a right to defend said life by any means necessary?

Do you think that by the nature of life, no individual or group of individuals have a right to initiate force, threat of force or fraud against another, regardless of the mechanism or tools used?

Do you think that anyone can use any tools necessary in defense of one’s life without anyone’s permission or approval?

The creation, production and fair exchange of values is the business of evolving consciousness, love and life.--Craig Johnson

my post today

http://www.dailypaul.com/270702/a-2nd-amendment-argument-you...

“Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the government take care of him better take a closer look at the American Indian.” ― Henry Ford.